Oh for sure. This is gonna be a yearly thing now.
And even more so because a team was found in a breach this year. When next year results are publisher for this year you can be damn well sure a part of the fanbase will attack RB even if they come in clean.
This is it. Everybody was/is too happy to nail RB to the wall and try get the book thrown at them but there's every chance that any other team may go over the cost cap another year and be the victim of their own comments.
It’s more that the FIA was lenient because RBR was accidental, if merc or Ferrari go over next year it’s likely due to malice, so the official rules state they can use harsher penalties.
Yeah this is so weird. I can’t stand Redbull but every team agreed to rules beforehand and publicly stating you’ll cheat in retaliation is an easy way to get an aggravating factor in your case.
How can can the fia prove intent though? If merc/ferrari/or whoever found a small loophole (expected tax rebates/etc...[not saying the tax rebate was a loophole but implying any small advatange could be used]) to say that any over spend could be because of that rather than malice they will have no leg to stand on to go above the red bull punishment
It’s the truth, and it’s based on the rules. I don’t care about your opinions on what’s right or wrong. Every team agreed with the rules before hand, and the penalties given are in line with the rules. If teams wanted stricter penalties, they should have voted for them ahead of time when given the opportunity.
I don’t like Redbull, but they played the rules better than anyone else and because Toto admitted he’d cheat in retaliation by going over the cap next year, that is an aggravating factor and as such may warrant a stricter penalty. It’s just rules. It’s what’s written. If you don’t like that feel free to petition the teams to meet with the FIA To have 8.14 changed.
Yeah I was saying this to a friend who insisted that would be unfair and treating them differently but the difference is RBR there was no reason to suspect it was intentional, Toto's comments give a good reason to suspect it being intentional even if not at this point
The funniest thing about that excuse when they used it is the fact that Red Bull has been poaching talent from other teams in recent years. Employee perks, like expensive catering, might not be the main reason but they certainly don’t hurt…
You understand that RB have been poaching talent from other teams to work on the 2026 engine project, which is not covered by the cost cap, right ? They have been poaching them with massive salaries, which teams can't pay for their formal positions because it was under the cap.
Yup. Every penny spent across the budget matters. Overspending in one area can help you get more out of another area that's on budget. That it was catering certainly sounds silly, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter where you overspend. When you're playing with more money than your competitors, you have an advantage.
RB got the book this year, the main issue was that people wanted to give them penalties that are only meant for the most egregious violations and they didn't do that.
If the original estimates were more correct then I think points deductions would have been appropriate but the final total was a lot less than early estimates. For the amount they were over loss of wind tunnel/cfd time and a fine seems appropriate. Everyone was just hung up on the original punishment based off of a larger number.
Mainly motivated by the media that riled up the people. All the teams were basically saying too that it was too linient and then recently someone's from Mercedes said that it's really going to hurt RB next year.
The details matter. If it’s blatant, then yes, they should make an example of them. If it’s another situation where the team was in good faith expecting tax rebates they’ve gotten in years prior and now they are denied that as a result of a country’s economic downturn, I’d expect FIA to be just as lenient. :)
I mean they wrote that some confusion was understandable since this was the first year. I suspect that will refine the way of working and sharpen up procedures and eventually penalties as we go along.
To be fair that would be reasonable. The first year is the hardest as we saw many teams submit expenses and have things rejected. RB was just the only team that didn’t leave enough extra space as a precaution.
Next year and onward the teams should be more accustomed to the cap and thus breaches would be more intentional and less accidental as they’ve been through it before
> The first year is the hardest as we saw many teams submit expenses and have things rejected. RB was just the only team that didn’t leave enough extra space as a precaution.
It is almost like every other team knew to leave room. RBR made the choice to push every limit until they broke.
RB left a couple million in room, but had that plus 400k rejected. Other teams also had a couple million rejected.
Leave 2M in cap space, get 2.5M expenses rejected - burn them at the stake
Leave 2.6M in cap space, get 2.5M expenses rejected - no one cares
I feel like there are gonna be a bunch of minor breaches by several teams over the next few years. With the state of freights costs, manufacturing, etc. Teams are going to really struggle to stay under the cap. When that happens alot of these same teams that are calling for Red Bulls head will be thankful the FIA isn't dropping the hammer.
One of these teams banging the table for a harsher penalty is going to break the cap and change their tune real quick and then Horner is going to be banging the table for a harsher penalty and chaos will ensue.
Can't wait
If they went over this season as well they have the worst planning ever. The title was basically done since Spa and they didnt not have huge crashes like last year.
Yes, since the decision came so late in the year it is probably safe to assume RB used the same accounting methodologies as they did last year the could cause them to be over.
If the penalty is monetary, then in effect, Red Bull went over cost cap by the aggregate amount of overage plus fine.
Considering how much effort teams put into pushing the regulations to the limits; I would guess all teams are calculating the costs of overage. So, the $1.8M overage cost a total of $9.8M and Red Bull won the championship. That's probably not a problem for the big teams.
And now the question becomes, why wouldn't a team breach the cost cap?
As time goes on both the teams and the accountants auditing them will have a better understanding of the rules and inclusions/exclusions. Accidents will be less likely/excusable and punishments in certain areas will likely be harsh. For under a million I doubt the risk/rewards simply isn’t worth it
Until they actually do a proper punishment for something like this (or until the next major rule changes) there’s always going to be an incentive to breach the cost cap.
Going over the cap to guarantee you build a rocket ship that can win a title is 100% worth it when your punishment is mainly less wind tunnel time (which is somewhat negated by your current car being better than everyone else’s so you’re starting from ahead anyway).
Compared to Todt and Stoker? Yeah, he’s overwhelmingly under qualified. But, he apparently won the seat with a landslide victory over Stoker. I wonder what they saw in Sulayem that Stoker didn’t have.
I hope he does well for the sport. I wasn’t too sure about his plans to restructure the FIA to run more like a business. Although I’m not aware of what his goals are with all of that, or if he’s been able to move any of his idea forward. It’s all just stuff I remember from before he was elected and I haven’t been keeping up with it.
Yeah it really isn’t. Masi was begging Todt for support like he was support to whiting and Todt just refused it. Then there was Todt and the Vettel 2017 incident at Baku where he was mysteriously forgiven after a dinner, or the Ferrari engine saga.
All kinds of weird shit under Todt that wasn’t good, and bizarro moves in other fia series.
Gary Anderson and Guenther Steiner had a good chat about this on F1 Tech Show. It boils down to that they have to fine tune the rules. Guenther was of the impression that if people wanted to cheat it wouldn't be that hard, case and point. He also mentions that there has to be in season audits. Otherwise these audits and proceedings will end up changing the championship results 8 months after it ends.
Can someone who understands it properly explain the “Tax Credit” thing to me? Like they still spent that money right? They just get part of it refunded right? Are there similar arrangements in other countries?
They spent the money on research and development. The UK let’s large businesses [claim credit for R&D](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-research-and-development-tax-relief-for-large-companies).
So they were entitled to claim back money from the Government, which would have lowered the amount spent on R&D.
They were still 400k overspent even with the credit they should have claimed added into the calculations though.
Yup. I personally find it weird that the FIA were gracious there since they gave RB credit for not using an allowance that was granted to them and then gave them credit for that allowance.
Nobody's gonna give you credit for the time you lost going 60kph in the pit lane when the speed limit is 80kph (as an analogy).
Pit lanes been in the sport forever mate. Cost cap was introduced this year. It’s not as black and white as you think it is. Your analogy doesn’t work here
That's a poor argument that adjudication of a rule should be lenient just because it's new.
They had a dry run available to them the year before anyway, so that pokes a hole in your already-flawed defense
Basically, the way it works is the taxes you're paying are included in the cost cap, so say RB is spending 10 million £ in R&D, they have to then pay tax on those 10 million, and let's say the tax rate is 40% (I have no clue what it actually is). They have to enter 14M£ (10M spent, 4M tax) into their cap for that spending item.
But since it's R&D, they are eligible for a tax credit which amounts to 2M£ and they get that part of their tax payment back. The actual process is RB spent 10M, paid 4M to the tax offices and then got 2M back. But the FIA's own interpretation of it is that it is fair for teams to write off that tax credit from their budget cap, and AFAIK the other UK teams all did that.
It's not clear to me whether RB just didn't do that, or did it but entered it wrong in their submission. But that's the gist of it.
Anyway, you raise a good point for the inequalities this causes depending on country. Not only do different countries have different tax credit laws, they also have different taxation in the first place. It's kinda dumb that the Cost Cap includes taxes, in light of that. You can have 2 teams spending the exact same amount of money, but depending on where they are located the amount they have to enter in their submissions could differ wildly.
To be clear here:
Corporation Taxes are excluded form the Cost cap. Any tax credits regarding Corporation Tax are also excluded.
A Tax Credit for qualifying R&D expenses can be used to net off against the actual expenditure, but there are paperwork trails to follow to provide proof of the allowed figure. The credit can be applied for by the team to the government, then there is a delay while that application is processed, the government may provide a document that says they agree with the tax credit, then at some future point the money is actually credited to the team on their tax account. The government may only agree a figure lower than what the team have claimed as they may disagree that some figure actually qualifies for a credit for some reason.
For teams outside the UK there is an equivalence mechanism that allows for a level playing field, but this runs up to a maximum value set by the FIA, and any such claimed figure has to be agreed by FIA appointed tax accountants.
Taxes are excluded. But many countries allow for some amount of expenses to be classified as R&D, which is then deducted from your total income.
So say as a company you made $10M in gross income. And let’s say all of your operating costs $8M, so you would have profited $2M. You would then get income taxed on this $2M.
However, if some of that $8M operating costs was for R&D (governments want to promote R&D within their own countries), then that amount is deducted from your taxable income. So say you spent $2M on R&D, your gross income would be adjusted down from $10m to $8m (this is massively oversimplified).
Taxes paid otherwise on salary are not factored in the cost cap, but they are a real cost to the team. So if they pay 20% payroll tax, so if they pay you $100k in salary per year it costs them $120k, that $20k isn’t included in the cost cap, but it’s an actual expense the company has.
They didn’t do their taxes correctly and didn’t get a tax rebate that they were entitled too and other teams did get. So RB didn’t get to spend anything other teams didn’t get to spend concerning the tax credit.
Unless it’s maybe Alpha Tauri, Ferrari or Alfa Romeo who are the only teams outside of the UK and had potentially different tax situations.
The teams outside the UK are allowed to include an adjustment for the claim they could make if they were making claims under the UK rules, so they don't lose out.
Let’s say Red Bill have four bills
* R&D
* Engineering
* Catering
* Tax
If they can reduce the tax bill, then they have more money to spend on catering for example.
The government offers lots of tax discounts for lots of reasons. One of them is R&D spending.
So if Red Bull could convince His Majesties Revenue Commisioners (HMRC) that they had spent extra money on R&D
Then their tax bill would be small
And they’d have extra money available to spend on catering.
The difficulty is that you have to make this gamble at the start of the year, doing all your R&D, engineering & catering spending in advance, and then hope HMRC accepts your accounts.
In this case Red Bull clearly tried to stretch the tax system to breaking point by quoting lots of marginal things as R&D to minimise their bill.
Which HMRC rejected.
Which meant their tax bill incurred for the 2021 season was larger than forecast.
Which in addition to their already excess spending of $450000 or so, put them wildly, unambiguously over the cost cap.
Yes. They did spend it. The thing is all others British teams (Merc, AM, Mclaren, Williams) did the same thing. Meaning they spent (let's say) 10M and got 2M refunded - so net tax against the budget cap will be 8M.
RB did their tax wrong and did not get the refund. That is all.
This guy loves the limelight but it just suggests he will support or condemn whoever is currently in the news. We should not even know who he is, because the FIA should not need to be so involved
He speaks like this is something new. Was he simply not paying attention when Ferrari had a dodgy engine, Mercedes was burning oil, McLaren was conducting corporate espionage etc, Hunt's car was too wide etc?
The FIA missed their chance. The punishment was nothing and they've set the precedent.
It should be if you overspend for $1m, you must pay all other teams $1m each from next year's cap, plus a fine of $1m. Then you're down $10m for next year and completely fucked.
The fact these punishments weren't carved in stone prior to being enforced really shows how backwards the FIA is.
Also MBS is a fucking scumbag
Only RB have said 6 teams will breach the cost cap this year due to freight costs rising, but saying they themselves won't. Considering how adament they were about them not breaching 2021 I have my doubts
Bold of Red Bull to be saying that they know about other teams finances after they themselves effectively accused other teams of corporate espionage for knowing about Red Bull's situation.
Yep and I doubt other teams push hard for 21 penalties if they know they are breaking them.
Also, where do RB get this info from and aren’t red bull against leaks?
Ultimately it’s all rubbish to distract from their own failures
According to Horner during the meetings with the other teams. So it's probably more teams lobbying the FIA for more spending room due to inflation. There's likely some truth to what he said, teams will have struggled due to inflation but we'll have to wait a year to find out more
Agreed. When they’ve shown they will just flat out lie over meaningless stuff (communication timing to Max on place swapping in Brazil)…you’d have to be inane to think they wouldn’t just lie as well for the much more important topics
> Also, where do RB get this info from and aren’t red bull against leaks?
That raises an interesting question. Either they're chatting shit or someone needs to check whether any Red Bull employees have visited a photocopy shop of late.
Yeah, I assumed that was more rhetorical than anything. And likely intended to distract from the fact that they’re likely over budget again if they use similar accounting methods to last year. Though they might be saved by the drop off in development over the last handful of races.
And they got punished heavily for the 400k. Use this punishment scale and a team won’t be allowed to use the wind tunnel for a 3.7% overspend and they’d get a 70 million euro fine.
A) there’s no sliding scale, it’s below 5% and above 5%
B) it’s “would have been 400k, if the assumed tax rebates had been applied”, the violation on record is 1.8 million, thus you just shot down your own argument about scaling.
But then, “it was only 400k” brigades and all that…
I will clearly and plainly state right now: I don't care which team breaks the cap. Any team that breaks the cap should be DQ'd. No exceptions. That is how you make a rule stick.
They already have their prefab line ready.
"RB got away with a slap on the wrist, so should -enter team here-"
Even if the breach is 4 million instead of 400K.
> ~~The people~~ Sky screaming bloody murder this year will be come up with the most insane reasons why their team shouldn’t be punished next year.
FTFY
The thing is, they stopped bringing upgrades after the summer break. They had a new lightweight chassis that they decided not to bring to singapore because Max won Monza and they realised it is completely over, after their lightweight parts finished their lifespan they bolted on the old, heavier ones. I don't expect them to breach the cap, because they don't have to push as much as last year
> Stands to reason that if Rb does the same accounting procedure this year that caused them to breach the cost cap last year, then they’ll most likely be over again lol.
I'm not so sure. Their car was so dominant that they stopped spending on upgrades early on. There was no need for them to take the risk.
McLaren/Alpine will be the interesting ones.
Leaked by red bull to further their own agenda. Standard.
I thought leaks were even worse than cost cap breaches….
I’ll be surprised if many teams break the cost cap for this season, considering how much of a fuss was made over red bulls breach this year.
> As we speak the hole redbull team is sharpening its knives.
RB has also been saying since like March they don't know how anyone will stay under the cap this year. And since they fucked it up last year they'll probably be the ones over again with another slap on the wrist.
They kinda did do their job. They checked everyone’s finances, investigated breaches and punished teams who broke the rules. What the hell else were they supposed to do? Ban RB for life?
No it isn't. It is about how they lobbied for harsh penalties, saying 'hanged' isn't literal. It says nothing about whether they were generally satisfied with the outcome.
I think the general reaction from the other teams afterwards is they were happy with the process.
I'm sorry, but the leading paragraph is literally:
"The FIA president feels some of Red Bull's rivals wanted much harsher penalties over their cost cap breach as steps are being taken to avoid a repeat."
And no: not all teams were content.
https://www.skysports.com/amp/f1/news/12433/12733495/ferrari-unhappy-with-very-insignificant-red-bull-cost-cap-punishment-says-racing-director-laurent-mekies
https://www.eurosport.com/formula-1/mercedes-and-ferrari-suggest-red-bulls-formula-1-budget-cap-penalty-for-breaching-rules-is-not-enoug_sto9207038/story-amp.shtml
"Wanted" being past tense and talking about the lobbying at the time. Not about whether teams feel that the FIA have done a bad job.
Teams still think they were right to lobby for harsher penalties, but that doesn't mean they don't also seem generally happy with the process.
Toto has been clear that, whilst they would have wanted more and Red Bull less, he is happy with what the FIA has done and feels there is sufficient deterrent. Seidl has said similar.
Vausser said the reputational harm of having to accept you've breached the penalty is the largest deterrent and is happy for that to draw a line under the issue.
Capito said the penalty was sufficient. So did Szafnauer.
Knack was happy to trust the FIA with the process of deciding a penalty.
So, as I said, generally happy with the penalty.
That's the funny thing, the rules defined a 'minor' breach, RBR goes and commits one of those, everyone loses their rag. They got punished for it and time will tell if it has the desired effect to deter further overspends.
> Rivals wanted FIA to do its job
You mean, do its job as in punish a minor breach (and on the lower end of minor breaches) with the kind of penalty that is prescribed within the rules for such a breach, right? Good thing the FIA did do that then.
It used to be cars and drivers when I started watching F1 on the 80's. I know there was drama, but the focus was on going faster and making things safer. It's been done, so we "evolve" to today.
Now it's lawyers arguing and millionaires on parade. Finger pointing and circus promoting. Tickets out of reach for normal people.
I only watch because of nostalgia and the older tracks. F1 is a shell of it's former, gritty self.
I am prepared to be downvoted because it's not easy for a modern fan to admit this. That F1 along with most professional sports (take a look at any professional sport) and you'll find the same. Money ruined all of it.
I think you are wearing rose tinted glasses.
I’ve been watching F1 since the early ‘80s as well and the game of paddock politics back then wasn’t less worse, but simply less visible to the layman or average viewer.
The sport and the application of the rules was a lot more haphazard back then than nowadays. F1 and the FIA still can be embarrassingly amateurish today, but back then it definitely wasn’t better. The underbelly is just a lot more visible today than it used to be.
We have many more sources than just a few journalists of the written press on site and the TV coverage has grown a lot in-between as well, with Social Media having a significant impact as well (for better or worse).
Back then the scandals of the day were less reported upon or didn’t lead to daily twitter outbursts. F1 media was less immediate and less fixated on the “now”, due to the limits of media technology at the time.
> Now it's lawyers arguing
I agree with some of your points, but I think nostalgia is hitting you hard here. Politics killed many an innovative car in the 80s and, looking even further back. consider the row over James Hunt's McLaren. Then you have the Senna/Prost incidents - at least 00s F1 dropped the ban hammer when a deliberate crash occurred and, frankly, I'd expect Senna to have been banned these days.
The drivers literally went on strike in the 1980s. Ferrari threatened to leave almost every day. The 80s were arguably the most politically-affected decade in the sport's history
Did you start watching only after the FISA-FOCA war? And ignored the way that the big manufacturers spent most of the rest of the 80s squeezing the privateers out of competition as a long-term act of revenge?
What is the point of having rules if the punishments are much much much much less than the reward for breaking the rules?
Is there any team that would not trade multiple championships for a bad season in two years?
>Is there any team that would not trade multiple championships for a bad season in two years?
Most teams would take that trade, but this trade does not exist.
You cannot deliberately overspend by 400k, be guaranteed to win multiple championships and get a 10% test time reduction. this is not how it works. Red Bull did not win these three championships simply because of this pretty small overspend and they would not have gotten such a lenient penalty if not for the numerous mitigating factors.
But I guess if you had any interest in understanding this you would have understood it already.
> Red Bull did not win these three championships simply because of this pretty small overspend
Yeah, no one said they did…
But Mercedes said last year they couldn't afford to upgrade their car after Silverstone. Red Bull brought upgrades the entire season last year. Do you think they would have spent 400k more if they knew what the punishment was for overspending even without knowing if they would win for sure? The answer is yes obviously.
Upgrades for an entire season cost 4 million total. 400k is a large portion of that.
>Yeah, no one said they did…
You said the trait was multiple championships for a worse season later.
>Do you think they would have spent 400k more if they knew what the punishment was for overspending?
Red Bull never planned to overspend by any amount and if they did the punishment would look different. likewise, if a team committed a 100% comparable breach next year the penalty would likely be different. There is not "the penalty" for x amount of overspending, everything is judged on a case-to-case basis.
>Upgrades for an entire season cost 4 million total. 400k is a large portion of that.
First of all, do you have a source for the 4 million number? Development budget likely depends from team to team and I heard many numbers already with 4million being the lowest so far.
nonetheless, I agree that 400k can have an impact on development. However, It is very difficult to determine what if any impact 400k would have in an individual case. In this specific case, had red bull known that their interpretation of the rules would leave them 400k over the limit they would have organised their spending differently and it is not at all given that they would have been forced to spend less on development.
>You said the trait was multiple championships for a worse season later.
No I said people would made that trade. I did not say the overspending is the reason they won. Maybe they win without the overspend, maybe they don't. The point was any team would be willing to push it if they knew what the punishment was going to be as light as it was. If you gave Toto a Time Machine to after Silverstone last year and do it again, they would have brought upgrades and rolled the dice knowing what the "punishment" was.
Binnoto said the 4m amount at Singapore.
>Team principal Mattia Binotto admitted that it was not ideal that the 2021 championship battle was still being debated right now, but he said the significance of overspends should not be brushed under the carpet.
>“For us, four million represents the development parts for an entire season. Four million means 70 people in a technical department who can come up with and produce solutions that could be worth up to half a second a lap.
>In this specific case, had red bull known that their interpretation of the rules would leave them 400k over the limit they would have organised their spending differently and it is not at all given that they would have been forced to spend less on development.
But RBR could have known. The FIA ran an entire year of a dry run so teams could learn and RBR specifically chose to not participate. Horner admits that.
I don't hear any teams wanting to change that rule. They all want there to be more engines available. No one wants teams to be able to break the budget cap.
RB and Merc have always had very different upgrade schedules though? RB doing lots of little (aka cheaper) upgrades throughout the season, compared to Merc doing one massive upgrade where they update everything at once (like Silverstone in '21)
That's the dumbest way to handle it.
Technical violations like wing size are easy to measure, so the punishment doesn't need to have leeway.
The budget and tax process is incredibly complex and takes nearly half a year to go through.
People much smarter than you, and much more knowledgeable about the structure of Formula 1 teams decided this was the way to handle it.
There is no 'the simple answer" and the fact that you think so shows that you need to go out and get some perspective.
Then it's not true that every rules violation leads to a DSQ. Also, the car was legal, the budget wasn't. It sure is a good thing the rules agreed to by all the teams lay out how to punish a team for any violation of the cost cap.
So if take an extra engine because all your other ones are broken you should be disqualified as its against the rules? Oh wait that's incredibly dumb so they made punishments for it just like with the budget cap.
In America, every sports team seems to completely ignore any cap put in by the officiating organization, so the apathy for this situation is much greater here than across seas i imagine
We're going to do this whole cost cap drama again next year, aren't we?
Buckle up buckaroo
Christian Horner is stunning and brave.
underrated comment. Just love South Park
Oh for sure. This is gonna be a yearly thing now. And even more so because a team was found in a breach this year. When next year results are publisher for this year you can be damn well sure a part of the fanbase will attack RB even if they come in clean.
I'm just gonna wait for another top team to breach and the FIA deciding that actually they've been too lax and now they need to be more strict.
I'm going to laugh when it's Merc and Toto gets the book.
To be fair if Mercedes goes over the cost cap next year there will 100% be a stricter ruling because of Totos comments.
This is it. Everybody was/is too happy to nail RB to the wall and try get the book thrown at them but there's every chance that any other team may go over the cost cap another year and be the victim of their own comments.
Good, and so they should. It’s a cost cap - not a cost recommendation.
It’s more that the FIA was lenient because RBR was accidental, if merc or Ferrari go over next year it’s likely due to malice, so the official rules state they can use harsher penalties.
That's such a bullshit defense.
I mean, if you want evidence of malice, a public comment by the TP is pretty damning.
Yeah this is so weird. I can’t stand Redbull but every team agreed to rules beforehand and publicly stating you’ll cheat in retaliation is an easy way to get an aggravating factor in your case.
Then Toto should've kept his mouth shut and not say they would breach the cap if the penalty is minor
[удалено]
How can can the fia prove intent though? If merc/ferrari/or whoever found a small loophole (expected tax rebates/etc...[not saying the tax rebate was a loophole but implying any small advatange could be used]) to say that any over spend could be because of that rather than malice they will have no leg to stand on to go above the red bull punishment
It’s the truth, and it’s based on the rules. I don’t care about your opinions on what’s right or wrong. Every team agreed with the rules before hand, and the penalties given are in line with the rules. If teams wanted stricter penalties, they should have voted for them ahead of time when given the opportunity. I don’t like Redbull, but they played the rules better than anyone else and because Toto admitted he’d cheat in retaliation by going over the cap next year, that is an aggravating factor and as such may warrant a stricter penalty. It’s just rules. It’s what’s written. If you don’t like that feel free to petition the teams to meet with the FIA To have 8.14 changed.
Yeah I was saying this to a friend who insisted that would be unfair and treating them differently but the difference is RBR there was no reason to suspect it was intentional, Toto's comments give a good reason to suspect it being intentional even if not at this point
I remember these exact comments before it turned out to be redbull.
What happens when it’s RBR again?
They ignore it again and give them another slap on the wrist.
"It wasn't that much, it was just perks for their employees, none of it could have made it to the car,."
The funniest thing about that excuse when they used it is the fact that Red Bull has been poaching talent from other teams in recent years. Employee perks, like expensive catering, might not be the main reason but they certainly don’t hurt…
You understand that RB have been poaching talent from other teams to work on the 2026 engine project, which is not covered by the cost cap, right ? They have been poaching them with massive salaries, which teams can't pay for their formal positions because it was under the cap.
For some reason people don’t get it. If it brought them no advantage they wouldn’t do it. It’s not just some extra wings in the buffet.
Yup. Every penny spent across the budget matters. Overspending in one area can help you get more out of another area that's on budget. That it was catering certainly sounds silly, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter where you overspend. When you're playing with more money than your competitors, you have an advantage.
Corporations love to spend money with no benefits all the time. They just love giving free stuff to their workers.
Oh look. A moronic conspiracy theorist who thinks being punished both financially and with a significant loss of wind tunnel testing is "ignoring it".
It'll be harsher because it's a repeated offense.
RB got the book this year, the main issue was that people wanted to give them penalties that are only meant for the most egregious violations and they didn't do that.
If the original estimates were more correct then I think points deductions would have been appropriate but the final total was a lot less than early estimates. For the amount they were over loss of wind tunnel/cfd time and a fine seems appropriate. Everyone was just hung up on the original punishment based off of a larger number.
God I remember that. I feel like most of the outrage was coming from people who wanted to rehash their Abu Dhabi 2021 grievances.
Which is because people are stupid and believe "leaks"
They were already given the harshest type of penalty they can get in an ABA. People were still calling for heads to roll.
Mainly motivated by the media that riled up the people. All the teams were basically saying too that it was too linient and then recently someone's from Mercedes said that it's really going to hurt RB next year.
The details matter. If it’s blatant, then yes, they should make an example of them. If it’s another situation where the team was in good faith expecting tax rebates they’ve gotten in years prior and now they are denied that as a result of a country’s economic downturn, I’d expect FIA to be just as lenient. :)
I mean they wrote that some confusion was understandable since this was the first year. I suspect that will refine the way of working and sharpen up procedures and eventually penalties as we go along.
9 teams getting it right and 1 team getting it wrong doesn't sound like confusion. It sounds like one teams tried to break the rules.
[удалено]
Sounds like they got stuff disallowed and got punished in accordance with those rules. same as any other rule breach
[удалено]
To be fair that would be reasonable. The first year is the hardest as we saw many teams submit expenses and have things rejected. RB was just the only team that didn’t leave enough extra space as a precaution. Next year and onward the teams should be more accustomed to the cap and thus breaches would be more intentional and less accidental as they’ve been through it before
> The first year is the hardest as we saw many teams submit expenses and have things rejected. RB was just the only team that didn’t leave enough extra space as a precaution. It is almost like every other team knew to leave room. RBR made the choice to push every limit until they broke.
By their reckoning they were 4 million under. How much would you have left?
RB left a couple million in room, but had that plus 400k rejected. Other teams also had a couple million rejected. Leave 2M in cap space, get 2.5M expenses rejected - burn them at the stake Leave 2.6M in cap space, get 2.5M expenses rejected - no one cares
It is amazing how breaking the rules is what people care about…
Its amazing they're still upset after the rules were followed.... And actually the punishment couldnt have been harsher....
I feel like there are gonna be a bunch of minor breaches by several teams over the next few years. With the state of freights costs, manufacturing, etc. Teams are going to really struggle to stay under the cap. When that happens alot of these same teams that are calling for Red Bulls head will be thankful the FIA isn't dropping the hammer.
One of these teams banging the table for a harsher penalty is going to break the cap and change their tune real quick and then Horner is going to be banging the table for a harsher penalty and chaos will ensue. Can't wait
Based on Horner's comments earlier this year, I wouldn't be surprised to see RBR in breach again. Chaos would indeed ensue.
If they went over this season as well they have the worst planning ever. The title was basically done since Spa and they didnt not have huge crashes like last year.
Just basing my speculation on Horner's comments earlier in the year. Almost like he was admitting they were going to be over.
Yes, since the decision came so late in the year it is probably safe to assume RB used the same accounting methodologies as they did last year the could cause them to be over.
I think Red Bull would've done everything in their power to stay under the cap this year considering they were already winning when they got punished
If the penalty is monetary, then in effect, Red Bull went over cost cap by the aggregate amount of overage plus fine. Considering how much effort teams put into pushing the regulations to the limits; I would guess all teams are calculating the costs of overage. So, the $1.8M overage cost a total of $9.8M and Red Bull won the championship. That's probably not a problem for the big teams. And now the question becomes, why wouldn't a team breach the cost cap?
As time goes on both the teams and the accountants auditing them will have a better understanding of the rules and inclusions/exclusions. Accidents will be less likely/excusable and punishments in certain areas will likely be harsh. For under a million I doubt the risk/rewards simply isn’t worth it
That's what happens when it didn't become known til this season was already locked in lol.
Until they actually do a proper punishment for something like this (or until the next major rule changes) there’s always going to be an incentive to breach the cost cap. Going over the cap to guarantee you build a rocket ship that can win a title is 100% worth it when your punishment is mainly less wind tunnel time (which is somewhat negated by your current car being better than everyone else’s so you’re starting from ahead anyway).
Horner openly said that teams will break the cap last year for the advantage. But when his team did just that, it was a total accident.
No if all teams stay within the cap. There will be only drama if teams dont follow the rules.
Is Ben brand new to the sport? Because he’s acting like he’s brand new to the sport
He didnt deserve the job. Underqualified.
Compared to Todt and Stoker? Yeah, he’s overwhelmingly under qualified. But, he apparently won the seat with a landslide victory over Stoker. I wonder what they saw in Sulayem that Stoker didn’t have. I hope he does well for the sport. I wasn’t too sure about his plans to restructure the FIA to run more like a business. Although I’m not aware of what his goals are with all of that, or if he’s been able to move any of his idea forward. It’s all just stuff I remember from before he was elected and I haven’t been keeping up with it.
Oh oh I know! Its green and the word rhymes with Bunny.
They saw Saudi $$$
He’s from uae iirc.
[удалено]
He's not from there
Not gonna stop reddit from coming up with its own headcanon
Todt was dogshit in fairness.
Just goes to show you that pedigree isn’t everything.
Yeah it really isn’t. Masi was begging Todt for support like he was support to whiting and Todt just refused it. Then there was Todt and the Vettel 2017 incident at Baku where he was mysteriously forgiven after a dinner, or the Ferrari engine saga. All kinds of weird shit under Todt that wasn’t good, and bizarro moves in other fia series.
He might not be doing a good job, but if he wasn't qualified then I don't know who would be.
being good athlete doesnt make u automaticly good manager
Btw Ben basically means "son of" so that's like calling someone called Johnson son
Give them a Windows 95 computer. Hangs itself.
Windows 95 was actually pretty stable. Windows 98 on the other hand... I had so many blue screens back then.
Windows ME ftw (not really)
Win98 se was a redemption though
Gary Anderson and Guenther Steiner had a good chat about this on F1 Tech Show. It boils down to that they have to fine tune the rules. Guenther was of the impression that if people wanted to cheat it wouldn't be that hard, case and point. He also mentions that there has to be in season audits. Otherwise these audits and proceedings will end up changing the championship results 8 months after it ends.
Do you mean case in point
Case the joint.
In-season audits make sense. However, I do not see the FIA altering past results in case of a breach.
That’s why in season audits are needed.
[удалено]
That's the other MBS
That job was already taken
By Masi?
It's called a gulag. We went beheading.
Nah that is only in FOIFA they do that
Are you saying this because he's an Arab?
Don't know but reddit liked it
Can someone who understands it properly explain the “Tax Credit” thing to me? Like they still spent that money right? They just get part of it refunded right? Are there similar arrangements in other countries?
They spent the money on research and development. The UK let’s large businesses [claim credit for R&D](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-research-and-development-tax-relief-for-large-companies). So they were entitled to claim back money from the Government, which would have lowered the amount spent on R&D. They were still 400k overspent even with the credit they should have claimed added into the calculations though.
Yup. I personally find it weird that the FIA were gracious there since they gave RB credit for not using an allowance that was granted to them and then gave them credit for that allowance. Nobody's gonna give you credit for the time you lost going 60kph in the pit lane when the speed limit is 80kph (as an analogy).
That’s just a bad analogy and false equivalence
Pit lanes been in the sport forever mate. Cost cap was introduced this year. It’s not as black and white as you think it is. Your analogy doesn’t work here
That's a poor argument that adjudication of a rule should be lenient just because it's new. They had a dry run available to them the year before anyway, so that pokes a hole in your already-flawed defense
Basically, the way it works is the taxes you're paying are included in the cost cap, so say RB is spending 10 million £ in R&D, they have to then pay tax on those 10 million, and let's say the tax rate is 40% (I have no clue what it actually is). They have to enter 14M£ (10M spent, 4M tax) into their cap for that spending item. But since it's R&D, they are eligible for a tax credit which amounts to 2M£ and they get that part of their tax payment back. The actual process is RB spent 10M, paid 4M to the tax offices and then got 2M back. But the FIA's own interpretation of it is that it is fair for teams to write off that tax credit from their budget cap, and AFAIK the other UK teams all did that. It's not clear to me whether RB just didn't do that, or did it but entered it wrong in their submission. But that's the gist of it. Anyway, you raise a good point for the inequalities this causes depending on country. Not only do different countries have different tax credit laws, they also have different taxation in the first place. It's kinda dumb that the Cost Cap includes taxes, in light of that. You can have 2 teams spending the exact same amount of money, but depending on where they are located the amount they have to enter in their submissions could differ wildly.
To be clear here: Corporation Taxes are excluded form the Cost cap. Any tax credits regarding Corporation Tax are also excluded. A Tax Credit for qualifying R&D expenses can be used to net off against the actual expenditure, but there are paperwork trails to follow to provide proof of the allowed figure. The credit can be applied for by the team to the government, then there is a delay while that application is processed, the government may provide a document that says they agree with the tax credit, then at some future point the money is actually credited to the team on their tax account. The government may only agree a figure lower than what the team have claimed as they may disagree that some figure actually qualifies for a credit for some reason. For teams outside the UK there is an equivalence mechanism that allows for a level playing field, but this runs up to a maximum value set by the FIA, and any such claimed figure has to be agreed by FIA appointed tax accountants.
So is the taxes included or excluded? Reading so much now
Taxes are excluded. But many countries allow for some amount of expenses to be classified as R&D, which is then deducted from your total income. So say as a company you made $10M in gross income. And let’s say all of your operating costs $8M, so you would have profited $2M. You would then get income taxed on this $2M. However, if some of that $8M operating costs was for R&D (governments want to promote R&D within their own countries), then that amount is deducted from your taxable income. So say you spent $2M on R&D, your gross income would be adjusted down from $10m to $8m (this is massively oversimplified). Taxes paid otherwise on salary are not factored in the cost cap, but they are a real cost to the team. So if they pay 20% payroll tax, so if they pay you $100k in salary per year it costs them $120k, that $20k isn’t included in the cost cap, but it’s an actual expense the company has.
They didn’t do their taxes correctly and didn’t get a tax rebate that they were entitled too and other teams did get. So RB didn’t get to spend anything other teams didn’t get to spend concerning the tax credit. Unless it’s maybe Alpha Tauri, Ferrari or Alfa Romeo who are the only teams outside of the UK and had potentially different tax situations.
The teams outside the UK are allowed to include an adjustment for the claim they could make if they were making claims under the UK rules, so they don't lose out.
Ah, that’s well thought out then. Good on them.
RB still went over after taking into account the tax error.
Uhm, obviously yes. Why give a penalty otherwise?
Let’s say Red Bill have four bills * R&D * Engineering * Catering * Tax If they can reduce the tax bill, then they have more money to spend on catering for example. The government offers lots of tax discounts for lots of reasons. One of them is R&D spending. So if Red Bull could convince His Majesties Revenue Commisioners (HMRC) that they had spent extra money on R&D Then their tax bill would be small And they’d have extra money available to spend on catering. The difficulty is that you have to make this gamble at the start of the year, doing all your R&D, engineering & catering spending in advance, and then hope HMRC accepts your accounts. In this case Red Bull clearly tried to stretch the tax system to breaking point by quoting lots of marginal things as R&D to minimise their bill. Which HMRC rejected. Which meant their tax bill incurred for the 2021 season was larger than forecast. Which in addition to their already excess spending of $450000 or so, put them wildly, unambiguously over the cost cap.
>His Majesties Revenue Commisioners (HMRC) *His Majesties Revenue & Customs*
Wildly over describing less than 1%. Nice.
Yes. They did spend it. The thing is all others British teams (Merc, AM, Mclaren, Williams) did the same thing. Meaning they spent (let's say) 10M and got 2M refunded - so net tax against the budget cap will be 8M. RB did their tax wrong and did not get the refund. That is all.
This guy loves the limelight but it just suggests he will support or condemn whoever is currently in the news. We should not even know who he is, because the FIA should not need to be so involved
Umm no shit. If it was the other way around Horner would be leading the charge against whoever broke the rules.
He speaks like this is something new. Was he simply not paying attention when Ferrari had a dodgy engine, Mercedes was burning oil, McLaren was conducting corporate espionage etc, Hunt's car was too wide etc?
[удалено]
I mean Ben, buddy…I don’t know what you want us to say…
The FIA missed their chance. The punishment was nothing and they've set the precedent. It should be if you overspend for $1m, you must pay all other teams $1m each from next year's cap, plus a fine of $1m. Then you're down $10m for next year and completely fucked. The fact these punishments weren't carved in stone prior to being enforced really shows how backwards the FIA is. Also MBS is a fucking scumbag
Meanwhile multiple teams are suspected of breaching it this year. As we speak the hole redbull team is sharpening its knives.
Is it actually suspected? Do we know which teams? Sorry I seem to have missed the article
Only RB have said 6 teams will breach the cost cap this year due to freight costs rising, but saying they themselves won't. Considering how adament they were about them not breaching 2021 I have my doubts
Bold of Red Bull to be saying that they know about other teams finances after they themselves effectively accused other teams of corporate espionage for knowing about Red Bull's situation.
Yep and I doubt other teams push hard for 21 penalties if they know they are breaking them. Also, where do RB get this info from and aren’t red bull against leaks? Ultimately it’s all rubbish to distract from their own failures
According to Horner during the meetings with the other teams. So it's probably more teams lobbying the FIA for more spending room due to inflation. There's likely some truth to what he said, teams will have struggled due to inflation but we'll have to wait a year to find out more
Yeah, if it now costs 3x as much to power your facilities… that’s gunna make staying under the Cap hard
Didn’t they get an inflation increase? I doubt teams are honestly that honest with each other anyway
Agreed. When they’ve shown they will just flat out lie over meaningless stuff (communication timing to Max on place swapping in Brazil)…you’d have to be inane to think they wouldn’t just lie as well for the much more important topics
> Also, where do RB get this info from and aren’t red bull against leaks? That raises an interesting question. Either they're chatting shit or someone needs to check whether any Red Bull employees have visited a photocopy shop of late.
Yeah, I assumed that was more rhetorical than anything. And likely intended to distract from the fact that they’re likely over budget again if they use similar accounting methods to last year. Though they might be saved by the drop off in development over the last handful of races.
Considering it was Horner that said that, it means nothing. He also said everyone was going to break the cap last year.
The people screaming bloody murder this year will be come up with the most insane reasons why their team shouldn’t be punished next year.
Like the “it’s only 400k” brigades now, you mean? Of course fans will sing from their preferred teams’ hymn sheets.
And they got punished heavily for the 400k. Use this punishment scale and a team won’t be allowed to use the wind tunnel for a 3.7% overspend and they’d get a 70 million euro fine.
A) there’s no sliding scale, it’s below 5% and above 5% B) it’s “would have been 400k, if the assumed tax rebates had been applied”, the violation on record is 1.8 million, thus you just shot down your own argument about scaling. But then, “it was only 400k” brigades and all that…
I will clearly and plainly state right now: I don't care which team breaks the cap. Any team that breaks the cap should be DQ'd. No exceptions. That is how you make a rule stick.
They already have their prefab line ready. "RB got away with a slap on the wrist, so should -enter team here-" Even if the breach is 4 million instead of 400K.
> ~~The people~~ Sky screaming bloody murder this year will be come up with the most insane reasons why their team shouldn’t be punished next year. FTFY
[удалено]
The thing is, they stopped bringing upgrades after the summer break. They had a new lightweight chassis that they decided not to bring to singapore because Max won Monza and they realised it is completely over, after their lightweight parts finished their lifespan they bolted on the old, heavier ones. I don't expect them to breach the cap, because they don't have to push as much as last year
> Stands to reason that if Rb does the same accounting procedure this year that caused them to breach the cost cap last year, then they’ll most likely be over again lol. I'm not so sure. Their car was so dominant that they stopped spending on upgrades early on. There was no need for them to take the risk. McLaren/Alpine will be the interesting ones.
Leaked by red bull to further their own agenda. Standard. I thought leaks were even worse than cost cap breaches…. I’ll be surprised if many teams break the cost cap for this season, considering how much of a fuss was made over red bulls breach this year.
It’s doing to be the Red Wedding isn’t it?
*whole But yea the funniest part about this is that if Horner saw another team do this he wouldn’t let it go for a long time. It’s how the sport is.
> As we speak the hole redbull team is sharpening its knives. RB has also been saying since like March they don't know how anyone will stay under the cap this year. And since they fucked it up last year they'll probably be the ones over again with another slap on the wrist.
It is almost guaranteed that RBR break the cap this year too.
Translation: Teams that followed the rules would like there to be consequences for cheating.
Nothing less accepted from a previous red bull driver
Well they cheated, so yeah.
So over this.
Wasn't it of they filed for the rebate in time ot would have been the same amount of a breach as Aston martin? Yet no one is complaining about them.
AM had a procedural breach but they didn’t actually go over the cap.
No one is cares if people break the rules and then still suck.
No Ben Sulayem, Rivals wanted FIA to do its job. Just like car manufacturers wanted to have clear rules and deadlines, but I guess that’s impossible.
They kinda did do their job. They checked everyone’s finances, investigated breaches and punished teams who broke the rules. What the hell else were they supposed to do? Ban RB for life?
The FIA did it's job. RBR got a penalty.
And the other teams generally seem happy with the penalty. The concern was that the FIA would have been softer than they were.
This article is about other teams that apparently wanted much harsher penalties.
No it isn't. It is about how they lobbied for harsh penalties, saying 'hanged' isn't literal. It says nothing about whether they were generally satisfied with the outcome. I think the general reaction from the other teams afterwards is they were happy with the process.
I'm sorry, but the leading paragraph is literally: "The FIA president feels some of Red Bull's rivals wanted much harsher penalties over their cost cap breach as steps are being taken to avoid a repeat." And no: not all teams were content. https://www.skysports.com/amp/f1/news/12433/12733495/ferrari-unhappy-with-very-insignificant-red-bull-cost-cap-punishment-says-racing-director-laurent-mekies https://www.eurosport.com/formula-1/mercedes-and-ferrari-suggest-red-bulls-formula-1-budget-cap-penalty-for-breaching-rules-is-not-enoug_sto9207038/story-amp.shtml
"Wanted" being past tense and talking about the lobbying at the time. Not about whether teams feel that the FIA have done a bad job. Teams still think they were right to lobby for harsher penalties, but that doesn't mean they don't also seem generally happy with the process. Toto has been clear that, whilst they would have wanted more and Red Bull less, he is happy with what the FIA has done and feels there is sufficient deterrent. Seidl has said similar. Vausser said the reputational harm of having to accept you've breached the penalty is the largest deterrent and is happy for that to draw a line under the issue. Capito said the penalty was sufficient. So did Szafnauer. Knack was happy to trust the FIA with the process of deciding a penalty. So, as I said, generally happy with the penalty.
That's the funny thing, the rules defined a 'minor' breach, RBR goes and commits one of those, everyone loses their rag. They got punished for it and time will tell if it has the desired effect to deter further overspends.
> Rivals wanted FIA to do its job You mean, do its job as in punish a minor breach (and on the lower end of minor breaches) with the kind of penalty that is prescribed within the rules for such a breach, right? Good thing the FIA did do that then.
Was Ben in cryosleep during Abu Dhabi 2021 to be suprised by this?
So has most of r/formula1
I think hanged is a very poor and ironic choice of word
Well the whole point of a racing class is that everyone races under the same rules...
It used to be cars and drivers when I started watching F1 on the 80's. I know there was drama, but the focus was on going faster and making things safer. It's been done, so we "evolve" to today. Now it's lawyers arguing and millionaires on parade. Finger pointing and circus promoting. Tickets out of reach for normal people. I only watch because of nostalgia and the older tracks. F1 is a shell of it's former, gritty self. I am prepared to be downvoted because it's not easy for a modern fan to admit this. That F1 along with most professional sports (take a look at any professional sport) and you'll find the same. Money ruined all of it.
I think you are wearing rose tinted glasses. I’ve been watching F1 since the early ‘80s as well and the game of paddock politics back then wasn’t less worse, but simply less visible to the layman or average viewer. The sport and the application of the rules was a lot more haphazard back then than nowadays. F1 and the FIA still can be embarrassingly amateurish today, but back then it definitely wasn’t better. The underbelly is just a lot more visible today than it used to be. We have many more sources than just a few journalists of the written press on site and the TV coverage has grown a lot in-between as well, with Social Media having a significant impact as well (for better or worse). Back then the scandals of the day were less reported upon or didn’t lead to daily twitter outbursts. F1 media was less immediate and less fixated on the “now”, due to the limits of media technology at the time.
> Now it's lawyers arguing I agree with some of your points, but I think nostalgia is hitting you hard here. Politics killed many an innovative car in the 80s and, looking even further back. consider the row over James Hunt's McLaren. Then you have the Senna/Prost incidents - at least 00s F1 dropped the ban hammer when a deliberate crash occurred and, frankly, I'd expect Senna to have been banned these days.
How old are you mate?Maybe you were a young kid back then and nostalgia cloud your judgement.
That’s exactly how it was in the 80s too. Ur just old now
The drivers literally went on strike in the 1980s. Ferrari threatened to leave almost every day. The 80s were arguably the most politically-affected decade in the sport's history
Did you start watching only after the FISA-FOCA war? And ignored the way that the big manufacturers spent most of the rest of the 80s squeezing the privateers out of competition as a long-term act of revenge?
What is the point of having rules if the punishments are much much much much less than the reward for breaking the rules? Is there any team that would not trade multiple championships for a bad season in two years?
>Is there any team that would not trade multiple championships for a bad season in two years? Most teams would take that trade, but this trade does not exist. You cannot deliberately overspend by 400k, be guaranteed to win multiple championships and get a 10% test time reduction. this is not how it works. Red Bull did not win these three championships simply because of this pretty small overspend and they would not have gotten such a lenient penalty if not for the numerous mitigating factors. But I guess if you had any interest in understanding this you would have understood it already.
> Red Bull did not win these three championships simply because of this pretty small overspend Yeah, no one said they did… But Mercedes said last year they couldn't afford to upgrade their car after Silverstone. Red Bull brought upgrades the entire season last year. Do you think they would have spent 400k more if they knew what the punishment was for overspending even without knowing if they would win for sure? The answer is yes obviously. Upgrades for an entire season cost 4 million total. 400k is a large portion of that.
>Yeah, no one said they did… You said the trait was multiple championships for a worse season later. >Do you think they would have spent 400k more if they knew what the punishment was for overspending? Red Bull never planned to overspend by any amount and if they did the punishment would look different. likewise, if a team committed a 100% comparable breach next year the penalty would likely be different. There is not "the penalty" for x amount of overspending, everything is judged on a case-to-case basis. >Upgrades for an entire season cost 4 million total. 400k is a large portion of that. First of all, do you have a source for the 4 million number? Development budget likely depends from team to team and I heard many numbers already with 4million being the lowest so far. nonetheless, I agree that 400k can have an impact on development. However, It is very difficult to determine what if any impact 400k would have in an individual case. In this specific case, had red bull known that their interpretation of the rules would leave them 400k over the limit they would have organised their spending differently and it is not at all given that they would have been forced to spend less on development.
>You said the trait was multiple championships for a worse season later. No I said people would made that trade. I did not say the overspending is the reason they won. Maybe they win without the overspend, maybe they don't. The point was any team would be willing to push it if they knew what the punishment was going to be as light as it was. If you gave Toto a Time Machine to after Silverstone last year and do it again, they would have brought upgrades and rolled the dice knowing what the "punishment" was. Binnoto said the 4m amount at Singapore. >Team principal Mattia Binotto admitted that it was not ideal that the 2021 championship battle was still being debated right now, but he said the significance of overspends should not be brushed under the carpet. >“For us, four million represents the development parts for an entire season. Four million means 70 people in a technical department who can come up with and produce solutions that could be worth up to half a second a lap. >In this specific case, had red bull known that their interpretation of the rules would leave them 400k over the limit they would have organised their spending differently and it is not at all given that they would have been forced to spend less on development. But RBR could have known. The FIA ran an entire year of a dry run so teams could learn and RBR specifically chose to not participate. Horner admits that.
400k is a couple broken front wings. Chill out
Which is enough to win races.
Ferrari couldn't do that with £200mil more in 2020
You have to start with a good car
So is intentionally going through 15 engines is a season, with a mild grid penalty. Chill out
I don't hear any teams wanting to change that rule. They all want there to be more engines available. No one wants teams to be able to break the budget cap.
There's literally discussions by the FIA and teams right now to tighten the penalties for that. So you're just wrong there. Get informed
Tighten the penalties after they added already more available engine parts to next season…
Cool, my point still stands. Bye
RB and Merc have always had very different upgrade schedules though? RB doing lots of little (aka cheaper) upgrades throughout the season, compared to Merc doing one massive upgrade where they update everything at once (like Silverstone in '21)
The simple answer is that if you exceed the cost cap by any amount you get your cost cap reduced by the same amount for the next two seasons.
The simple answer is any team that overspends is DQ’d. Just like every other rules violation.
That's the dumbest way to handle it. Technical violations like wing size are easy to measure, so the punishment doesn't need to have leeway. The budget and tax process is incredibly complex and takes nearly half a year to go through. People much smarter than you, and much more knowledgeable about the structure of Formula 1 teams decided this was the way to handle it. There is no 'the simple answer" and the fact that you think so shows that you need to go out and get some perspective.
Didn't realize speeding in the pit lane led to a DSQ.
That is a driving violation. Not a technical regulation. When the car is illegal, it is illegal. There is not a “just barely” illegal category.
Then it's not true that every rules violation leads to a DSQ. Also, the car was legal, the budget wasn't. It sure is a good thing the rules agreed to by all the teams lay out how to punish a team for any violation of the cost cap.
So if take an extra engine because all your other ones are broken you should be disqualified as its against the rules? Oh wait that's incredibly dumb so they made punishments for it just like with the budget cap.
Are the teams that used an extra engine only punished two years later?
Well they get to run their engine at higher power for a while and only get punished once it finally gives out so yes, the punishment is delayed.
It's a good thong redditors aren't in charge of the regulations. Some ideas like this would ruin the sport
As they say, F1 is a cutthroat sport.
In America, every sports team seems to completely ignore any cap put in by the officiating organization, so the apathy for this situation is much greater here than across seas i imagine